The Fund for Peace’s Country Profiles are intended to provide further depth and analysis to our annual Failed States Index. Our Country Profiles focus on the current scores for individual countries in regard to pressures experienced by those nations. We are also pioneering our Capacity measures in order to provide an indication as to states’ ability to handle the pressures they experience. Through analysis of trends and recent events, we aim to demonstrate the events-based progress (or otherwise) of individual countries.

The Failed States Index data used for our Country Profiles is from the most current edition. For Country Profiles dated between April 1 and March 31, 2011, for example, the data used is from the Failed States Index 2011. For Country Profiles published after April 1, 2012, the data used is from the Failed States Index 2012.

Our Country Profiles provide a basic snapshot of the health of individual countries. For further in-depth analysis at a regional-, national-, or provincial-level, we are able to perform customized assessments. Please contact us for further details.

Reading the Country Profiles

Overview

Pressures

These numbers represent the scores and standing of the country in the most recent Failed States Index. Note that a low score (out of 120) and a low ranking (i.e., 177th of 177) is most desirable; the worst possible score is 120 and the worst possible ranking is 1st. For Year-on-Year scores, this represents the score change since the previous Failed States Index. Note that a “minus” change represents an improvement and a “plus” change represents a worsening since the previous year (as the lower the Failed States Index score, the better). For the purposes of this representation, a change of plus or minus 0.3 is represented as “Steady” as we believe this is a reasonable margin of error to assume.

Capacity

These numbers represent the scores and standing of the country in our most recent analysis of State Capacity. Note that a high average indicator score (out of 10) and a high ranking (i.e., 1st of 177) is most desirable. The average indicator score is provided instead of the total score as not all countries are currently assessed on all capacity indicators due to relevance (for example, Costa Rica is not assessed on military capacity as it does not possess a military). Year-on-Year trends are currently not provided for capacity scores for lack of comparable year-on-year data.

Combined

This number represents the difference between the average capacity indicator score minus the average pressure indicator score with a result ranging from -10 through +10. Note that a “positive” score indicates that a country possesses greater capacity in comparison to the pressures it faces; a “negative” score indicates that a country faces greater pressures than it has capacity to be able to adequately handle those pressures.

Comparative Statistics

To provide greater breadth of understanding of a country beyond our own FFP data, we provide basic statistics including population, annual GDP per capita (based on Purchasing Power Parity), life expectancy and median age. Under each figure, we provide the current extremes for each measure among the countries we include in our overall analysis – though there are countries with smaller populations than the Seychelles, for example, we provide that country as the lowest population extreme as it is the least-populated of the 177 countries we analyze.

Social, Economic and Political Pressures

The total Failed States Index score, out of a total of 120, is comprised of twelve individual indicator scores – 4 social, 2 economic and 6 political/military. The Country Profiles provide the most current indicator scores for each country along with trends. Note that the higher the indicator score (out of 10), the greater the pressure experienced in that area.

Year-on-Year Trends demonstrate score changes for each indicator since the previous year. Where the score has dropped by 0.2 or more, it is deemed to have improved; where the score has increased by 0.2 or more, it is deemed to have worsened. The margin of error for year-on-year indicator changes, for this representation, is assumed to be plus or minus 0.2.

Five-Year Trends demonstrate score changes for each indicator over 5 years. Where the score has dropped by 0.3 or more, it is deemed to have improved; where the score has increased by 0.3 or more, it is deemed to have worsened. The margin of error for 5-year indicator changes, for this representation, is assumed to be plus or minus 0.3.

Multi-Year Pressure Trend

The Failed States Index scores since 2005 (or later in some cases) are represented on a simple trend chart. If the score is arcing upwards, it would indicate a gradual worsening; if the score is arcing downwards, it would indicate a gradual improvement. Note that the large chart is only a representation of a magnified slice of the 120 point scale – the smaller chart, inset, represents the same trend line on the full 120 point scale.

Multi-Indicator Comparison

The total Failed States Index score, out of a total of 120, is comprised of twelve individual indicator scores – 4 social, 2 economic and 6 political/military. In arriving at the total score, some indicators contribute more than others, as countries experience pressures in different ways. For example, a country may face greater social pressures than it does economic; or a country may face uniquely acute pressures in just a handful of indicators. These two charts – one for the Failed States Index (pressure) scores and the other for the capacity scores – demonstrate to what degree each indicator contributes to the overall score. The colored bars correspond to the colors of the indicators and are represented in the same order as pressures are represented on pages 4 and 5 and capacities are represented on page 7.

The extremes for each score are represented as “finish lines”. For pressures, for example, no country will score below Finland, the best performer, or score beyond Somalia, the worst performer. The average line of all countries is also provided to demonstrate if a country is above or below average.

Capacity Scores

The Fund for Peace is currently pioneering capacity measures for every country. These measures are comprised of a weighted basket of various indicators and statistics from agencies ranging from the World Bank to Freedom House, from Transparency International to The Economist Intelligence Unit. For some time, the Fund for Peace has assessed the five Core State Capacity Indicators: Leadership, Military, Police, Judiciary and Civil Service. We have also recently added an assessment of Civil Society and the Media.

Each Capacity Indicator is assessed out of 10 with higher scores desirable, representing greater capacity in that particular area.

It is important to understand that although a country may score well for a particular indicator that should not necessarily lead to a conclusion that that capacity is being fully utilized. For example, a country may score well for Police, but that does not necessarily mean that that country’s police force is exceptionally “good.” What it does mean is that for the country’s size, the capacity of its police force (if utilized to its full extent) is high. A country may have a high proportion of police officers by ratio to population, suggesting high capacity. However, if the police are corrupt, poorly trained and/or largely inactive in fighting crime, this would not be reflected in the capacity score – instead, it would be reflected in the Security Apparatus pressure indicator. Similarly, a low score for Media would mean that there is little ability or capacity for the media to flourish due to a lack of press freedoms – it is not necessarily a commentary on the competence of the media in that country.

Note that not all countries are assessed under each capacity indicator. For example, if a country (like Costa Rica) lacks a military, it will not be assessed for Military capacity. Alternatively, if there is insufficient data for a country under a specific capacity indicator, it will also not be assessed.

Note that capacity scores are currently assessed in a very different manner to the Failed States Index pressure scores. Though we believe that the capacity scores are quite accurate (after all, the data sets from other institutions underpinning these scores are themselves quite rigorous), they are still under development.

Pressures v. Capacity Plot Comparison

Some countries have high capacity, yet experience comparatively little pressure. Some countries are the opposite. And many others fall somewhere in between. We provide a plot graph that compares each country’s Failed States Index score with its average capacity indicator score. Countries that experience low pressure and possess high capacity (the most desirable combination) will be found in the top left quadrant of the chart. For purposes of comparison, we have labeled only those states that may be considered “outliers” – those that deviate most from the mean.

Pressures v. Capacities Flat Comparison

This is a graphical representation of the Combined Pressures and Capacity score from page 3. The number represents the difference between the average capacity indicator score minus the average pressure indicator score with a result ranging from -10 through +10. Note that a “positive” score indicates that a country possesses greater capacity in comparison to the pressures it faces; a “negative” score indicates that a country faces greater pressures than it has capacity to be able to adequately handle those pressures. This chart represents how individual countries score relatively to others, and where they fall in relation to being above or below average.